Constitutional Rights

[michaeledward]

As for rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I will point out that many of those rights are predicated on an earlier right, first acknowleged in the 'Great Writ'; the right of Habeus Corpus.

This protection guaranteed a detained person, a hearing before an independent person or panel, to ensure the accused is paired correctly with the accusation.

This right has taken a beating recently ~ you may have heard.

Our form of government was created specifically by and for the 'consent of the governed'. If the governed decide to change some aspect of our government, are they not allowed to do so?


Again, this thread was split from another. And in that thread, an argument was raised concerning as to whether something was a 'right' or 'justifiable'. In that thread, I directed the posters to the legal framework being used to make that determination. Something most other people ignored (in my opinion).

In this thread, dart68 draws from the source material, to support his point of view. The irony of dart68's first point ~ that slavery at one time was not just "ok" with people, but enabled in our Constitution, and that the 'highest written law' in our country was changed by the majority of people (at great cost e.g. the Civil War), seems to be missed.


It seems to me, that some of the attitudes displayed in this thread bear a striking resemblence to Judge Roy Moore's stone.

 

[Ray]

That seems to be the second time in this modified thread, that someone has chosen the language of aggression (or threat) to discuss the subject.

Isn't that interesting?

Hopefully this doesn't refer to my post which was just above your post. If it does, I find your interpretation interesting since there was no threat just a restatement of "those who have the gold make the rules."

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

As for rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I will point out that many of those rights are predicated on an earlier right, first acknowleged in the 'Great Writ'; the right of Habeus Corpus.

This protection guaranteed a detained person, a hearing before an independent person or panel, to ensure the accused is paired correctly with the accusation.

This right has taken a beating recently ~ you may have heard.

Our form of government was created specifically by and for the 'consent of the governed'. If the governed decide to change some aspect of our government, are they not allowed to do so?

Absolutely. But are you now saying that majority can make laws banning the right to free speech, or freedom of religion? And can do so without modifying the U.S. Constitution?

I believe there is a Constitutional process to change the Constitution. And it requires the majority of ALL states to amend. The actions of a state (or its citizens alone) should not be able to trump a right expressly enumerated within the Bill of Rights, which is exactly what is being done. Nearly all of the laws curtailing the ownership of firearms are being done on the state level, not a federal (ie. U.S. Constitutional) level.

If the majority of states want to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that firearm ownership is not a right, then there really can be no argument as to that legallity. But again, that is not the case.

 

[crushing]

As for rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I will point out that many of those rights are predicated on an earlier right, first acknowleged in the 'Great Writ'; the right of Habeus Corpus.

This protection guaranteed a detained person, a hearing before an independent person or panel, to ensure the accused is paired correctly with the accusation.

This right has taken a beating recently ~ you may have heard.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Is this part of the justification to apply a beating to the 2nd Amendment?

One doesn't need to be a gun owner to support "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", just as one doesn't have to be religious, speak out, operate a press, or conduct a peaceful assembly to support the 1st Amendment.

The end of slavery wasn't a result of overturning or beating down of any of the Bill of Rights. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, but there was nothing in the constitution previous to then that made it "the right of the people to keep and use slaves."

As for the whole minority v. majority aspect. I always took the Bill of Rights as something to protect the minority from the majority and the government. I'd hate to see any tinkering with that. Whether it be through the amendment process, or by new interpretations of the wording of the 2nd Amendment that turns it into a restriction imposed on the people or as a right granted to the government.

 

[michaeledward]

Hopefully this doesn't refer to my post which was just above your post. If it does, I find your interpretation interesting since there was no threat just a restatement of "those who have the gold make the rules."

Ray, it does. Your post seems to be implying that those with the guns can shoot those without the guns.

If that was not your intent, it was less than clear, to me at least.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle

 

[Ray]

Ray, it does. Your post seems to be implying that those with the guns can shoot those without the guns.

If that was not your intent, it was less than clear, to me at least.

Those with guns "can" shoot those without guns easier than visa versa; they "shouldn't" but look around.

That said, I live in a rural area where people hunt. People my age used to take their rifles to school because, after school, they'd hunt. But most of the gun owners are responsible. I believe in the right to bare arms, and I interpret as possessing weapons for protection against enemies and tyrants from within and without; I don't hunt, I don't target practice - in fact I don't even own a gun.

Someone else mentioned the idea that the majority couldn't modify our constitutional freedoms without our consent. I have to ask about "hate speech" laws. "Hate speech" is terrible and (I think), there are laws against it in some places. While you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, sure the "hate speech" stuff is limiting the constitutional right of free speech? BTW: I don't condone "hate speech" and don't think I'm participating in it.

 

[michaeledward]

The method of altering the Constitution is prescribed within the document itself.

Two-thirds of the legislators in each house must vote in favor of a suggested change. Then three-quarter of the several State's legislatures must then ratify the suggested change.

And, while one poster suggested that owning of slaves was never an enumerated right within our founding documents. The Constitution of the United States does specifically spell out that slaves were used as a method of calculating the population of a State for representation in the lower body of our Congress.

It seems odd that an Amendment to the Constitution would be required to revoke something, unless that thing existed.

Ray, I am agnostic on guns, myself. Which may be why this thread ~ and those that spawned it are so interesting to me. Those arguing in favor of the Second Amendment rights are, mostly, using rhetoric of an oppressed minority and religious fervor;

For reference ... Monadnock says we citizens should never know how many guns are owned in America ... it is a subject of privacy. Is not privacy the underlying idea behind a woman reproductive choices? How do those arguments proceed?

(Not attempting to alter the topic, here, just to reference how we all sometimes choose which idea or principle we are going to use to defend a position. ... And how we sometimes ignore that same idea or principle when discussing a different topic).

 

[Monadnock]

For reference ... Monadnock says we citizens should never know how many guns are owned in America ... it is a subject of privacy. Is not privacy the underlying idea behind a woman reproductive choices? How do those arguments proceed?

(Not attempting to alter the topic, here, just to reference how we all sometimes choose which idea or principle we are going to use to defend a position. ... And how we sometimes ignore that same idea or principle when discussing a different topic).

Private ownership of legal items vs. private murder are apples and oranges. (Not to derail the thread, but if the whole point of this is to show hypocracy then the examples need to be somewhat related.)

A better example would be medical records in general. They are nobody's business and I would fervently defend the right to keep those private just as much as I would the number of guns someone owns.

 

[Cruentus]

What I find amazing is when people in one sense will want to use the fact that we need to protect minority rights (as in habeous corpus and free speech and so forth) to support ideas that they are comfortable with, but will then use "majority rules" to try to justify trouncing on the rights of the minority when dealing with ideas that are uncomfortable, like gun rights.

Such arguements exhibit no intellectual integrity.

 

[michaeledward]

"trouncing" Paul?

"no intellectual ingetrity".

Really?

 

[michaeledward]

What I find amazing is when people in one sense will want to use the fact that we need to protect minority rights (as in habeous corpus and free speech and so forth) to support ideas that they are comfortable with, but will then use "majority rules" to try to justify trouncing on the rights of the minority when dealing with ideas that are uncomfortable, like gun rights.

Such arguements exhibit no intellectual integrity.

And ... the right of habeus corpus is not a 'minority right'. It is a universal right that applies to any and all individuals in our system of jurisprudence.



EDIT - Incidently, I do not mean to imply that currently the 2nd Amendment extends 'minority rights', either. Rather, I am pointing out that a minority of citizens currently exercise this right. I suppose, even fewer exercise habeus. I wonder how many would miss the 2nd Amendment if they needed, compared to who would miss habeus, if it was needed. - END EDIT

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The method of altering the Constitution is prescribed within the document itself.

Two-thirds of the legislators in each house must vote in favor of a suggested change. Then three-quarter of the several State's legislatures must then ratify the suggested change.

Absolutely. But what we have is a situation where statel legislatures have enacted state laws restricting / prohibiting the ownership / carrying of firearm without using the Amendment changing process. And what's even worse, the judicial system is upholding these unconstitutional laws.

If you look at the purpose behind the writing of the Second Amendment, as can be found in the myriad of writings of the Founding Fathers, for self-defense, including from the government. And so noone can accuse me of not citing my sources:

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samual Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington

Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense. -- John Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton

Unfortunately, in our "kindler, gentler" world, these principles seem to have no place in the U.S. anymore.

And for those who don't think that gun control can, and often is used to begin to oppress citizens:

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Throughout history, one of the steps for ruling, not governing, its citizens is to restrict and disallow the ownership of weapons. Why should the U.S. government be exempt from this historical fact?

 

[michaeledward]

5-0 Kenpo, this isn't really a discussion about the purpose or intent of the Second Amendment. Quoting founders sentences from your favorite gun supporting web page, doesn't add to the discussion. And it is nothing we have had around here before.

As to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I believe the language itself informs us of the founders intent.

What I am discussing, is how not-reasoned the arguments become when discussing this gun rights.

This thread came about because the United Nations surveyed its member nations and found that there were no instances where "Self-Defense" was written into the legal frame work of any of the member nations as a 'Right'. The United Nations found among its member states that "Self-Defense" was a sufficient justification to avoid a guilty verdict. "Self-defense" was sufficient justification for taking the life of another ~ in violation of the universal right to life.

I believe there are real differences in these two positions. I believe those differences are subtle and meaningful. And I see some on this board resorting to hyperbole, and talking points in their claims and the report said.

For instance ... our Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to self defense. It guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. If one pays attention to the first part of the Amendment, it is noted that we have this right because a well-regulated militia is required for a free state. That language seems to be telling us that our right to bear arms is in order to defend the state, not the individual.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

5-0 Kenpo, this isn't really a discussion about the purpose or intent of the Second Amendment. Quoting founders sentences from your favorite gun supporting web page, doesn't add to the discussion. And it is nothing we have had around here before.

As to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I believe the language itself informs us of the founders intent.

What I am discussing, is how not-reasoned the arguments become when discussing this gun rights.

This thread came about because the United Nations surveyed its member nations and found that there were no instances where "Self-Defense" was written into the legal frame work of any of the member nations as a 'Right'. The United Nations found among its member states that "Self-Defense" was a sufficient justification to avoid a guilty verdict. "Self-defense" was sufficient justification for taking the life of another ~ in violation of the universal right to life.

I believe there are real differences in these two positions. I believe those differences are subtle and meaningful. And I see some on this board resorting to hyperbole, and talking points in their claims and the report said.

For instance ... our Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to self defense. It guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. If one pays attention to the first part of the Amendment, it is noted that we have this right because a well-regulated militia is required for a free state. That language seems to be telling us that our right to bear arms is in order to defend the state, not the individual.

That may have been the original intent of the thread, but it has to some degree turned into such a discussion.

I find it interesting that you assume that I found my quotes from "my favorite gun supporting web page. This would seem to be an effort to try to disregard what I am saying because of where I MAY have gotten this information from, rather than dealing with what it say in itself.

And your, and others, interpretations of the Second Amendment, although it may be an interesting intellectual exercise, is irrellevant. When the founders themselves tell us what they meant, your interpretation that the right to bear arms was to "defend the state, and not the individual" is patently false. Especially if you read the statements of the founders themselves, which says that the individual has these rights. Re-read the statements by John Adams, George Washington, and James Madison.

And I will agree with you that I think that most people's argumentation relies on emotion, rhetoric, etc., rather than well-reasoned logic. That's why discussing such issues is often difficult.

 

[Monadnock]

Were duels self defense? How many founding fathers were in duels. Seems owning guns goes beyond self defense. :jediduel:

 

[michaeledward]

That may have been the original intent of the thread, but it has to some degree turned into such a discussion.

I find it interesting that you assume that I found my quotes from "my favorite gun supporting web page. This would seem to be an effort to try to disregard what I am saying because of where I MAY have gotten this information from, rather than dealing with what it say in itself.

And your, and others, interpretations of the Second Amendment, although it may be an interesting intellectual exercise, is irrellevant. When the founders themselves tell us what they meant, your interpretation that the right to bear arms was to "defend the state, and not the individual" is patently false. Especially if you read the statements of the founders themselves, which says that the individual has these rights. Re-read the statements by John Adams, George Washington, and James Madison.

And I will agree with you that I think that most people's argumentation relies on emotion, rhetoric, etc., rather than well-reasoned logic. That's why discussing such issues is often difficult.

5-0 Kenpo, if you wish to use an appeal to higher authority as a justification for something, I would suggest you not take a single sentence and attach a name to it. If one is going to attempt to justify something based on what someone else said, you really need to provide more context than a single sentence.

As with most appeals to authority, it is hoped that merely mentioning the names of James Madison and George Washington will be sufficient to end the discussion.



For instance, let us examine your quote from Mr. Washington, and put it into perspective with today's Republican Party voters. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Republican Party believes itself to be the stronger party when it comes to National Defense. When people vote Republican, it would not be unreasonable to assume that they are voting, in part, for that strong national defense.

Let's take a closer look at Mr. Washington's statement.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
​

If a member of today's Republican Party took Mr. Washingtons words to heart, could they possibly, in good conscience, vote for a party that increase the size of the government's military? Can any citizen today meet the threshold laid down for us by Mr. Washington?

Isn't this appeal to Mr. Washington incoherent for the current day Republican Party?


No, it seems that by calling out a single sentence, and ascribing it to Mr. Washington, you are not seeking to further debate and discussion, but to shut it down.


And, where you found these quotes is similarly irrelevant. Maybe you are sitting at home evenings reading the Federalist Papers, and biographies of the founders. I don't know. I think that you didn't pull these quotes from the books on your bookshelf, but rather gathered them from some other source, that has assembled them over time. There is no harm in either. The fact is, that by using these quotes, you are using an 'appeal to higher authority'. Show the reasoning, not just the results of the reasoning.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

5-0 Kenpo, if you wish to use an appeal to higher authority as a justification for something, I would suggest you not take a single sentence and attach a name to it. If one is going to attempt to justify something based on what someone else said, you really need to provide more context than a single sentence.

As with most appeals to authority, it is hoped that merely mentioning the names of James Madison and George Washington will be sufficient to end the discussion.



For instance, let us examine your quote from Mr. Washington, and put it into perspective with today's Republican Party voters. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Republican Party believes itself to be the stronger party when it comes to National Defense. When people vote Republican, it would not be unreasonable to assume that they are voting, in part, for that strong national defense.

Let's take a closer look at Mr. Washington's statement.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
​

If a member of today's Republican Party took Mr. Washingtons words to heart, could they possibly, in good conscience, vote for a party that increase the size of the government's military? Can any citizen today meet the threshold laid down for us by Mr. Washington?

Isn't this appeal to Mr. Washington incoherent for the current day Republican Party?


No, it seems that by calling out a single sentence, and ascribing it to Mr. Washington, you are not seeking to further debate and discussion, but to shut it down.


And, where you found these quotes is similarly irrelevant. Maybe you are sitting at home evenings reading the Federalist Papers, and biographies of the founders. I don't know. I think that you didn't pull these quotes from the books on your bookshelf, but rather gathered them from some other source, that has assembled them over time. There is no harm in either. The fact is, that by using these quotes, you are using an 'appeal to higher authority'. Show the reasoning, not just the results of the reasoning.

There was no appeal to authority. You said, and I quote, "As to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I believe the language itself informs us of the founders intent." My reply to you was to quote the founding fathers who stated their intent themselves, making your belief irrelevant. I was not using them to show that we should or should not be able to own firearms, or to make a position statement. I was using your own statement about what you believed was the Founder's intent, and showing that the Founder's said otherwise with their very own words. I wonder how showing you what they actually said in this context is an appeal to authority.

Secondly, you cloud what I said with trying to concern us with what the modern day Republican's interpretation would be. On that, I am not interested, nor did a make an argument asserting that the Republican view was any better than any others. It seems to me that you are again trying to detract from my arguement by bringing in erroneous statements, rather dealing with what I have actually said / shown.

But, to your questions anyway. You seem to be making the assertion that in order to defeat an enemy, ones arms and armaments must be exactly equal to those of said enemy. In other words, if your enemy has a tank, you must start with a tank, or even a dedicated anti-tank armament in order to defeat the enemy. Without getting completely off track, history has proved that this in not necessarily the case.

However, there is a certain level that one must have in order to be able to defeat an enemy. And history has show us that modern (to the particular era) individual arms is that starting level. Therefore, one doesn't need arms "equal" to the organized army in order to defeat it. So lessening our army's technology is unnecessary. And I would argue that if all citizens were able to own a sufficient level of indiviual arms, they would be able to defeat that army. And don't
confuse thier defeat with the physical destruction of the enemy's forces.

And in the same paragraph as stating that where I got my quotes from is irrelevant, you still continue to make you opinion as to where I got the quotes from anyway. A not so subtle form of Ad Hominem perhaps.


In any event, the Founder's words provide the framework for which they intended the Second Amendment. We can choose to either honor it or not. If we feel a need to interpret it, it should be by using that framework. And, especially in this instance, if we choose to ignore their framework, we do so to our detriment.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

When do the actions of those pushing for 'gun rights' become 'affirmative action'? Special protections for a minority population?

Going back to the original thread, from which this was split ... what would the response be to questions like "President Candidates: Who will be good for gay marriage?" and "Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for minority admissions into colleges?"

It was a thought.

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I had to respond to this. There's no way that either group--gun owners or anti-gun control advocates--would qualify as a political minority group, at least not in the sense of civil rights. While the definition of what qualifies as a minority group deserving of special protection isn't exactly crystal clear, neither gun ownership or one's position on gun control would be as fundamental an aspect of one's self as are, say, race, religion, sex, or creed. This "fundamental self" explanation is, if I correctly recall from my Employment Discrimination course, the reasoning behind what categories are and aren't protected by the Civil Rights Act and Title VII, as opposed to the whole choice explanation (race and sex aren't choices, creed and religion are.) No matter how hot the political issue of gun ownership may get, it won't become something as "fundamental to self", if you will, to qualify one as a minority member.

A bit off-topic from the thread, I know, but I had to throw that out there.

 

[DArnold]

First off as Therday stated on the first page:

But the whole government was built (IMO) on the idea that people in power are not trustworthy, so checks and balances have to be set.

Sort of correct, however, we are not a democracy but a republic as the founders also thought that the common man was not smart enough to govern themselves.

Reguardless of how you define the 2nd amendment people will always want to bend the definitions to what they think.

And if you have ever been the victem of a crime lately, you know the police will not be there to protect you as that is not their job! If you think I'm wrong go read up on the laws.

Just look at seperation of Church and state.
There is no such thing!
People are starting to realize a couple of problems:
1) Our laws and founding was based on the church
2) By folowing this precept you are discriminating against the church, and god... we can't have decrimination. (I don't care who you are... that was funny)

A major problem now is people don't know the 14 amendment. We are now becoming a "Mommy" state and expecting the government to protect us.

I don't believe in seat belt laws, smokeing laws, insurance laws...
I also don't believe it is the governments responsability to take care of you when you SCREW UP!
The purpose of the laws is supposed to protect our freedoms.

Look back at history and you will see it is repeating itself.
Hitler made people so scarred that they would give up their freedoms.
People in power know that if you make people afraid they will do anything you want them to do. When Juliani says, "If you elect a democrat more people will die than if you elect a Republican", this is the politics of fear.

Habeus Corpus is not that old and it was a problem in England when they tried to suspend it. That is the contension in Guantanamo, people are being held without reason as the president has overridden our laws.

But you can allow it because you are afraid.

The government can wiretap everyone, because you are afraid.

(Does anyone remember that we booted a president out of office for wire tapping?)

Right now the things I am afraid of is
- Fear politics
- Mommy state
- The point when a "Politician" became a career!
- A president who sets himself above the law.

Where did we get the idea that laws are going to solve all our problems!